NO, it's not government connections at all! - Page 3

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 01:32

Boris -

Quote:

Just go to the frickin' dictionary, people:

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

I did, but we're dealing here with Kid so the definition has to be repeated several times.

looks like you used the same online dictionary I used.

Kidicious · December 12, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Boris -

I did, but we're dealing here with Kid so the definition has to be repeated several times.

looks like you used the same online dictionary I used.

If you think there aren't any free markets in the US then I can't tell you anything.

MrFun · December 12, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Where did you get that def? A govt that doesn't intervene is no govt at all.

Sorry, government nonentervention in the market.

I thought that would be obvious in the context of an economic system

In Apolyton debates, I guess nothing is taken as being obvious.

Urban Ranger · December 12, 2003, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Take note of the words in bold. Once the market is not free, it is no longer capitalism.

1. According to who? Smith? Ricardo? Marx? Keynes?

2. Define "free" market.

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 03:12

UR, according to the dictionary. Boris and I have supplied the very same definition...

Kid -

Quote:

If you think there aren't any free markets in the US then I can't tell you anything.

You're

Kid. The definition of capitalism has been offered in response to your challenge and you've been refuted; resistance is futile, don't fight it, accept it, embrace it, just don't blow a gasket trying to avoid it...

As for whether or not there are any aspects of the US economy the Republicrats haven't distorted with taxes, regulations, or subsidies (we were debating this? No, you're changing the subject), I'm sure there are a few but the corporate welfare being discussed here - contracts handed to Halliburton - is not one of them. Got that? Sheesh!

Ned · December 12, 2003, 04:48

Just say a story on the news about extremely long gas lines in Baghdad. It takes a full day to tank up. So the option for the US military to buy from the Iraqi's is a non starter. They would only make the shortages worse.

Just seeing the gas lines tells me a lot about the prices the Iraqi's themselves are paying. Obvioulsly, they are way too low, otherwise they would be swiming in gas.

uh Clem · December 12, 2003, 08:21

Headline in today's Times: U.S. Sees Evidence of Overcharging in Iraq Contract

This just in: Sun rises in East

Urban Ranger · December 12, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
UR, according to the dictionary. Boris and I have supplied the very same definition...

Government nonintervention does not make a free market. In fact, a free market is one where a government keeps monopolies and cartels from forming.

Ned · December 12, 2003, 13:20

As the facts come out, it appears that the problem is that Halliburton is buying gas in Kuwait at $2 a gallon while Kuwait is selling it for $1 a gallon to others.

Kuwait is gouging the United States!

Edan · December 12, 2003, 16:18

Bush: Halliburton Must Pay for Overcharge

chequita guevara · December 12, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Just go to the frickin' dictionary, people:

capÂ·iÂ·talÂ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Oh yes. I always use the dictionary to describe a complex and masive system of social organization.

Yeah, that "definaition" isn't tainted by ideoogy at all.

Ramo · December 12, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

I'm debating you and when poly communists deny that Stalinism represents communism, you've agreed (don't ask me to track down a quote because I can't/won't).

3-year old debates don't count.

Quote:

Now, you didn't answer my question about public schools, are they capitalistic?

They can be.

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Government nonintervention does not make a free market. In fact, a free market is one where a government keeps monopolies and cartels from forming.

Free Market - An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

"Minor restrictions" can be vague and in the eye of the beholder, but corporate welfare is not a regulation, it's a handout to favored businesses.

chequita guevara · December 12, 2003, 20:02

Free market = a market which is regulated by the rich, by the rich.

Kidicious · December 12, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
UR, according to the dictionary. Boris and I have supplied the very same definition...

Kid -

You're

Kid. The definition of capitalism has been offered in response to your challenge and you've been refuted; resistance is futile, don't fight it, accept it, embrace it, just don't blow a gasket trying to avoid it...

As for whether or not there are any aspects of the US economy the Republicrats haven't distorted with taxes, regulations, or subsidies (we were debating this? No, you're changing the subject), I'm sure there are a few but the corporate welfare being discussed here - contracts handed to Halliburton - is not one of them. Got that? Sheesh!

Have you taken any introduction to economics courses, or read any introduction textbooks? Corporate Welfarism is not an economic system. Period. The US's economic system is capitalism. Everyone knows that except you and your padiwan.

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 20:32

Kid -

Quote:

Corporate Welfarism is not an economic system

Corporate welfarism is similar to mercantilism, not capitalism. And yes, mercantilism is an economic system. As for the US, capitalism requires a free market and a free market allows at most minor regulation. Therefore, some aspects of the US economy may qualify as capitalistic while other aspects are not because they are highly regulated. But if you think corporate welfarism is not an economic system and capitalism is an economic system, why would you argue corporate welfarism is capitalism?

Kidicious · December 12, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

Corporate welfarism is similar to mercantilism, not capitalism. And yes, mercantilism is an economic system. As for the US, capitalism requires a free market and a free market allows at most minor regulation. Therefore, some aspects of the US economy may qualify as capitalistic while other aspects are not because they are highly regulated. But if you think corporate welfarism is not an economic system and capitalism is an economic system, why would you argue corporate welfarism is capitalism?

Corporate welfarism is not an economic system, period. Go look at a chapter in any intro to econ textbook titled comparative economic systems.

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 20:57

Kid, why do you keep ignoring my questions? If corporate welfarism is not an economic system and capitalism is an economic system, then why would you argue corporate welfare is capitalism?

Mercantilism is an economic system and it has alot in common with corporate welfarism.

Kidicious · December 12, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid, why do you keep ignoring my questions? If corporate welfarism is not an economic system and capitalism is an economic system, then why would you argue corporate welfare is capitalism?

I'm not arguing that corporate welfare is capitalism. I'm arguing that there is no such economic system as economic welfarism and therefore the US is not corporate welfarist. Corporate welfare normally exists in a capitalist system. That doesn't mean that it is capitalism.